Re: [PATCH 2/5] PM / Wakeirq: Add automated device wake IRQ handling

[Tony Lindgren]

* Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [150514 09:30]:
> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> [150514 09:12]:
>  
> > > int dev_pm_request_wake_irq_managed(struct device *dev, int irq);
> > 
> > I don't get this. Would this request with devm_ while the former
> > wouldn't use devm_ ?
> 
> Typo :) Both can be devm no problem.
...

> > > The life cycle of the request and free of the wake irq is not the
> > > same as the life cycle of the device driver. For example, serial
> > > drivers can request interrupts on startup and free them on shutdown.
> > 
> > fair enough, but then we start to consider the benefits of using
> > devm_ IRQ :-)
> 
> Hmm probably the extra checks do not hurt there either.

We should keep the PM related functions called dev_pm_*, using
devm_pm_* just gets hard to pronounce.. So yeah I too am thinking
just not using devm here at all as the consumer drivers are not
allocating anything.

Regards,

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/